I'd say the Hunger games felt a bit like fast food. I raced through the trilogy of books in a weekend as they were compellingly written, but also ultimately a bit underdeveloped, even empty (perhaps befitting fiction targeting teens). There is almost nothing significant missing from the translation to screen - except pace(!) Indeed, from memory there are a few extra scenes in the films. But'd I'd happily pay a couple of quid for fast food - and so it is for an hour or two's entertainment.

I must admit Lord of the Flies also came to mind when I used Battle Royale as an example. Being aware that all too often a lot gets left behind when transitioned from book to screen, I just wondered if the books had any genuine 'firsts' because (as you've already alluded to) it's been said that there's only variants of seven basic plots from which to hang a story so could have been noteworthy for that on top of it's popularity. Either way, that's an awful lot of entertainment for £2. Thanks for replying :smiley:

Not having a go at the books (I've not read them) but I'm genuinely curious as I've seen a couple of the films and it seemed to borrow heavily from Battle Royale - what ground is the trilogy meant to have broken?

All three in the series are the same price £2, at The Works with free Click and Collect.
https://www.theworks.co.uk/search/hunger%20games
They also often have the box set for £5 but not at the moment

Just to point out if you have Prime then you can read the Kindle version (kindle not required) for free.